To continue the topic of America, climate change, and the Paris Agreement I began in this post, I will answer the last question I posed: what happens when America refuses to embrace clean energy?
There are two aspects to this question that offer vastly different answers: domestic and international. Domestically, where President Trump obviously has extraordinary power, efforts against global warming and other environmental concerns will suffer markedly, as they already have been. In my last post, I mentioned pesticide and pipelines, but the injury runs much deeper. We have an EPA chief who does not believe in human-caused climate change or Obama-era clean energy initiatives. A joint resolution from Congress revoked the "Stream Protection Rule," which aimed to protect waterways from mining waste. U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke overturned the ban on lead ammunition and fishing tackle to prevent lead poisoning in plants and animals.
The administration is doing plenty, but we cannot forget about Trump's own executive orders directed at environmental issues: "Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth," "Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the 'Waters of the United States' Rule," and "Expediting Environmental Review and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects." All three carefully address in one way or another that while "it is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development" of energy and other environmentally-drawn resources, they should not disrupt economic growth. Whatever the intentions of these executive orders are, they are short-sighted and damaging to the environment. The first revokes an Obama executive order and three memoranda on clean energy and climate change, rescinds the President's Climate Action Plan and Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions, and begins to tear down the Clean Power Plan. The second targets the addition under Obama to the Clean Water Rule, defining "waters of the United States" as including smaller streams and wetlands that are not necessarily "navigable." The third calls for expediting federal infrastructure projects at the expense of more thorough environmental reviews. Coal, oil, even water as we know it will not last forever. Even if the Trump administration continues to support non-sustainable resources and decrease major environmental protections, it is a huge mistake to not invest in clean energy and environmental protections.
The U.S. under Trump will most definitely not reach Paris Agreement targets, whether or not Trump officially tries to withdraw. An analysis by Climate Advisors, a company dedicated to clean energy policy and solutions, found that our country could add up to half a gigaton of carbon dioxide by 2025. That is 500,000,000 tons. Moreover, since our "emissions trajectory... cannot be quickly reversed," the effects of this administration will actually be more strongly felt the years following his term.
One positive note rings out from the Climate Advisors analysis: despite the harm this administration is doing to federal environmental regulations, it "will not be able to reverse existing market trends that favor a low-carbon economy." One of the big contributors to carbon emissions is, of course, transportation. A great example of the low-carbon approach becoming more acceptable and even popular is the success of the Toyota Prius. The Prius has enjoyed consistent sales and reputation, and I know from my own personal life the surprisingly significant presence of Priuses. The Prius is probably the most well-known car model among my peers. Entire families exclusively own Priuses. People struggle to find their Uber or Lyft because all the drivers use Priuses. Beyond cars, even some of the biggest companies of the energy industry are advocates. The CEO of General Electric Co. went so far as to say that companies should create "their own 'foreign policy'" to commit to climate change efforts, and Exxon Mobil, an enormous gas and oil company, said America should remain in the Paris Agreement. Hopefully, Americans will remain motivated to pursue a clean-energy future even if the Trump administration continues to slash emissions and energy restrictions and environmental protections.
Internationally, it looks like other countries will not be deterred by what happens here. Executive Director of Greenpeace International commented that the U.S. administration "[stands] completely alone on being climate deniers." Considering that every recognized country or political union signed the Paris Agreement, those concerned about global warming can be comforted by the fact that the international trend is clear: climate change is real, and every country needs to do something about it.
What could potentially push America back on the right track with regards to global warming and environmental protection is, interestingly enough, what we like best: competition. Experts have been looking specifically to China as the new leader in climate change. The country with the highest carbon emissions has been suffering from extensive pollution of air, water, and soil, and the mounting risks, including millions of people dying from polluted air, have kicked the government's focus on climate change efforts into high gear. Hopefully, the rest of the world will continue to stay strong on the climate change front, and America will eventually jump back on the wagon, if not for the sake of our future planet, then for the sake of not being left behind by the international community.
Great read. I was particularly intrigued by the argument you made in the last paragraph. It is interesting to think that competition with another nation could be the main reason for improved environmental protection policies here in the United States. In terms of economics power, China is catching up to the United States. This makes me think that we may already be looking to China as a competitor. Adding to that the issue of environmental protection could pay serious dividends for domestic policy reform efforts in that area. I do wonder, however, if Trump's isolationist tendencies might lead him to overlook all the good that China is doing in that area. It may well be that he does not care about China's advances. Overall, I do think a little bit of competition is good for everyone in the long run (like how the "space race" was fueled by competition between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., resulting in numerous advances in spaceflight and knowledge). I just think we need to cultivate the correct collective mindset that will make environmental protection a priority.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this piece. I even wrote a piece on the future of climate change myself. This administration has been frustrating for many people. When I talked about my climate change piece, I mentioned that not many people our age don’t really deny climate change. With the advancement of technology, I think it is going to be harder and harder to deny something that is so obviously there. You say “Hopefully, the rest of the world will continue to stay strong on the climate change front, and America will eventually jump back on the wagon, if not for the sake of our future planet, then for the sake of not being left behind by the international community.” I agree with this, I think in the future, we will be able to accept it as a country and the administration we have will be on board.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost let me just say that most Ubers I have ridden in have in fact been Priuses. Uber drivers owning Priuses has been such a common occurrence in my life that it’s become a sort of running joke. As for the main topic of your post, I find the Trump Administration’s relationship with the environment/climate change interesting, comical, and worrisome all at once. At this point, the denial of climate change is baffling and irrational. Even if one were to be skeptical of all the scientific evidence, I’d imagine they would at least consider climate change a possibility and try to stem it before it causes potentially irreversible damage to the planet that would impact future generations. The fact that China, a country notorious for pollution, can be looked to as the leader in climate change in favor of the U.S. shows how absurd this trend in climate change-denial amongst our government officials has become.
ReplyDelete